System and method for query temporality analysis

ABSTRACT

A new approach is proposed that contemplates systems and methods to determine temporality of a query in order to generate a search result including a list of objects that are not only based on matching of the objects to the query but also based on temporality analysis of the query. Here, the temporality of the query can be defined as the distribution over time of the objects matching the query, i.e., the chronology histogram of the query. Such distribution can be analyzed to provide a classification of the intent of the query. Classification of the intent of the query can result either in discrete classification of the query into categories, or in continuous classification of the query which may be a scalar or vector value resulting from transformations of the chronology histogram.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent ApplicationNo. 61/355,443, filed Jun. 16, 2010, and entitled “A system and methodfor query temporality analysis,” and is hereby incorporated herein byreference.

BACKGROUND

Knowledge is increasingly more germane to our exponentially expandinginformation-based society. Perfect knowledge is the ideal thatparticipants seek to assist in decision making and for determiningpreferences, affinities, and dislikes. Practically, perfect knowledgeabout a given topic is virtually impossible to obtain unless theinquirer is the source of all of information about such topic (e.g.,autobiographer). Armed with more information, decision makers aregenerally best positioned to select a choice that will lead to a desiredoutcome/result (e.g., which restaurant to go to for dinner). However, asmore information is becoming readily available through variouselectronic communications modalities (e.g., the Internet), one is leftto sift through what is amounting to a myriad of data to obtain relevantand, more importantly, trust worthy information to assist in decisionmaking activities. Although there are various tools (e.g., searchengines, community boards with various ratings), there lacks any indiciaof personal trustworthiness (e.g., measure of the source's reputationand/or influence) with located data.

Currently, a person seeking to locate information to assist in adecision, to determine an affinity, and/or identify a dislike canleverage traditional non-electronic data sources (e.g., personalrecommendations—which can be few and can be biased) and/or electronicdata sources such as web sites, bulletin boards, blogs, and othersources to locate (sometimes rated) data about a particulartopic/subject (e.g., where to stay when visiting San Francisco). Such anapproach is time consuming and often unreliable as with most of theelectronic data there lacks an indicia of trustworthiness of the sourceof the information. Failing to find a plethora (or spot on) informationfrom immediate non-electronic and/or electronic data source(s), theperson making the inquiry is left to make the decision using limitedinformation, which can lead to less than perfect predictions ofoutcomes, results, and can lead to low levels of satisfactionundertaking one or more activities for which information was sought.

Current practices also do not leverage trustworthiness of informationor, stated differently, attribute a value to the influence of the sourceof data (e.g., referral). With current practices, the entity seeking thedata must make a value judgment on the influence of the data source.Such value judgment is generally based on previous experiences with thedata source (e.g., rely on Mike's restaurant recommendations as he is achef and Laura's hotel recommendations in Europe as she lived and workedin Europe for 5 years). Unless the person making the inquiry has anextensive network of references from which to rely to obtain desireddata needed to make a decision, most often, the person making thedecision is left to take a risk or “roll the dice” based on bestavailable non-attributed (non-reputed) data. Such a prospect often leadscertain participants from not engaging in a contemplated activity.Influence accrued by persons in such a network of references issubjective. In other words, influence accrued by persons in such anetwork of references appear differently to each other person in thenetwork, as each person's opinion is formed by their own individualnetworks of trust.

Real world trust networks follow a small-world pattern, that is, whereeveryone is not connected to everyone else directly, but most people areconnected to most other people through a relatively small number ofintermediaries or “connectors”. Accordingly, this means that someindividuals within the network may disproportionately influence theopinion held by other individuals. In other words, some people'sopinions may be more influential than other people's opinions.

As referred to herein, influence is provided for augmenting reputation,which may be subjective. In some embodiments, influence is provided asan objective measure. For example, influence can be useful in filteringopinions, information, and data. It will be appreciated that reputationand influence provide unique advantages in accordance with someembodiments for the ranking of individuals or products or services ofany type in any means or form.

One issue facing an online user is the difficulty to search for contentthat actually addresses his/her problem from his/her own perspective orfrom someone whose opinion the user values highly. Even when the user isable to find the content that is relevant to address his/her problem,such content is most likely to be of “time neutral” type that does notcategorize the search results based on their timing.

The foregoing examples of the related art and limitations relatedtherewith are intended to be illustrative and not exclusive. Otherlimitations of the related art will become apparent upon a reading ofthe specification and a study of the drawings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 depicts an example of a citation graph used to support citationsearch.

FIG. 2 depicts an example of a system diagram to support querytemporality analysis.

FIG. 3 depicts an example of a flowchart of a process to support querytemporality analysis.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS

The approach is illustrated by way of example and not by way oflimitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings in which likereferences indicate similar elements. It should be noted that referencesto “an” or “one” or “some” embodiment(s) in this disclosure are notnecessarily to the same embodiment, and such references mean at leastone.

A new approach is proposed that contemplates systems and methods todetermine temporality of a query in order to generate a search resultincluding a list of objects that are not only based on matching of theobjects to the query but also based on temporality analysis of thequery. Here, the temporality of the query can be defined as thedistribution over time of the objects matching the query, i.e., thechronology histogram of the query. Such distribution can be analyzed toprovide a classification of the intent of the query. For non-limitingexamples, a query with constant/even distribution of objects over timeis most likely intended for knowledge or canonical, while a query withdistribution of objects concentrated at particular points is most likelyfocused on a specific event, and a query with distribution of objectsincreased over time mainly reflects the recent interest of a user.Classification of the intent of the query can result either in discreteclassification of the query into categories as shown by the non-limitingexamples above, or in continuous classification of the query which maybe a scalar or vector value resulting from transformations of thechronology histogram. Such classification of the query can be directlycommunicated to the user or be utilized to perform further operations,which include but are not limited to, choosing different forms ofdisplaying the search result to the user, choosing different methods todetermine the search result, and as an input to the search resultcomputation.

Citation Graph

An illustrative implementation of systems and methods described hereinin accordance with some embodiments includes a citation graph 100 asshown in FIG. 1. In the example of FIG. 1, the citation graph 100comprises a plurality of citations 104, each describing an opinion ofthe object by a source/subject 102. The nodes/entities in the citationgraph 100 are characterized into two categories, 1) subjects 102 capableof having an opinion or creating/making citations 104, in whichexpression of such opinion is explicit, expressed, implicit, or imputedthrough any other technique; and 2) objects 106 cited by citations 104,about which subjects 102 have opinions or make citations. Each subject102 or object 106 in graph 100 represents an influential entity, once aninfluence score for that node has been determined or estimated. Morespecifically, each subject 102 may have an influence score indicatingthe degree to which the subject's opinion influences other subjectsand/or a community of subjects, and each object 106 may have aninfluence score indicating the collective opinions of the plurality ofsubjects 102 citing the object.

In some embodiments, subjects 102 representing any entities or sourcesthat make citations may correspond to one or more of the following:

-   -   Representations of a person, web log, and entities representing        Internet authors or users of social media services including one        or more of the following: blogs, Twitter, or reviews on Internet        web sites;    -   Users of microblogging services such as Twitter;    -   Users of social networks such as MySpace or Facebook, bloggers;    -   Reviewers, who provide expressions of opinion, reviews, or other        information useful for the estimation of influence.

In some embodiments, some subjects/authors 102 who create the citations104 can be related to each other, for a non-limiting example, via aninfluence network or community and influence scores can be assigned tothe subjects 102 based on their authorities in the influence network.

In some embodiments, objects 106 cited by the citations 104 maycorrespond to one or more of the following: Internet web sites, blogs,videos, books, films, music, image, video, documents, data files,objects for sale, objects that are reviewed or recommended or cited,subjects/authors, natural or legal persons, citations, or any entitiesthat are or may be associated with a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI),or any form of product or service or information of any means or formfor which a representation has been made.

In some embodiments, the links or edges 104 of the citation graph 100represent different forms of association between the subject nodes 102and the object nodes 106, such as citations 104 of objects 106 bysubjects 102. For non-limiting examples, citations 104 can be created byauthors citing targets at some point of time and can be one of link,description, keyword or phrase by a source/subject 102 pointing to atarget (subject 102 or object 106). Here, citations may include one ormore of the expression of opinions on objects, expressions of authors inthe form of Tweets, blog posts, reviews of objects on Internet web sitesWikipedia entries, postings to social media such as Twitter or Jaiku,postings to websites, postings in the form of reviews, recommendations,or any other form of citation made to mailing lists, newsgroups,discussion forums, comments to websites or any other form of Internetpublication.

In some embodiments, citations 104 can be made by one subject 102regarding an object 106, such as a recommendation of a website, or arestaurant review, and can be treated as representation an expression ofopinion or description. In some embodiments, citations 104 can be madeby one subject 102 regarding another subject 102, such as arecommendation of one author by another, and can be treated asrepresenting an expression of trustworthiness. In some embodiments,citations 104 can be made by certain object 106 regarding other objects,wherein the object 106 is also a subject.

In some embodiments, citation 104 can be described in the format of(subject, citation description, object, timestamp, type). Citations 104can be categorized into various types based on the characteristics ofsubjects/authors 102, objects/targets 106 and citations 104 themselves.Citations 104 can also reference other citations. The referencerelationship among citations is one of the data sources for discoveringinfluence network.

FIG. 2 depicts an example of a system diagram to support determinationof quality of cited objects in search results based on the influence ofthe citing subjects. Although the diagrams depict components asfunctionally separate, such depiction is merely for illustrativepurposes. It will be apparent that the components portrayed in thisfigure can be arbitrarily combined or divided into separate software,firmware and/or hardware components. Furthermore, it will also beapparent that such components, regardless of how they are combined ordivided, can execute on the same host or multiple hosts, and wherein themultiple hosts can be connected by one or more networks.

In the example of FIG. 2, the system 200 includes at least search engine204, influence evaluation engine 204, and object selection engine 206.As used herein, the term engine refers to software, firmware, hardware,or other component that is used to effectuate a purpose. The engine willtypically include software instructions that are stored in non-volatilememory (also referred to as secondary memory). When the softwareinstructions are executed, at least a subset of the softwareinstructions is loaded into memory (also referred to as primary memory)by a processor. The processor then executes the software instructions inmemory. The processor may be a shared processor, a dedicated processor,or a combination of shared or dedicated processors. A typical programwill include calls to hardware components (such as I/O devices), whichtypically requires the execution of drivers. The drivers may or may notbe considered part of the engine, but the distinction is not critical.

In the example of FIG. 2, each of the engines can run on one or morehosting devices (hosts). Here, a host can be a computing device, acommunication device, a storage device, or any electronic device capableof running a software component. For non-limiting examples, a computingdevice can be but is not limited to a laptop PC, a desktop PC, a tabletPC, an iPod, an iPhone, an iPad, Google's Android device, a PDA, or aserver machine. A storage device can be but is not limited to a harddisk drive, a flash memory drive, or any portable storage device. Acommunication device can be but is not limited to a mobile phone.

In the example of FIG. 2, search engine 202, influence evaluation engine204, and object selection engine 206 each has a communication interface(not shown), which is a software component that enables the engines tocommunicate with each other following certain communication protocols,such as TCP/IP protocol, over one or more communication networks (notshown). Here, the communication networks can be but are not limited to,internet, intranet, wide area network (WAN), local area network (LAN),wireless network, Bluetooth, WiFi, and mobile communication network. Thephysical connections of the network and the communication protocols arewell known to those of skill in the art.

Temporality Analysis

In the example of FIG. 2, search engine 202 accepts a search request inthe form of a query from a user and determines temporality of a query inorder to generate a search result including a plurality of objects 106that are not only based on matching of the objects to the query but alsobased on temporality analysis of the query. FIG. 3 depicts an example ofa flowchart of a process to support query temporality analysis. Althoughthis figure depicts functional steps in a particular order for purposesof illustration, the process is not limited to any particular order orarrangement of steps. One skilled in the relevant art will appreciatethat the various steps portrayed in this figure could be omitted,rearranged, combined and/or adapted in various ways.

In the example of FIG. 3, the flowchart 300 starts at block 302 where aquery is accepted from a user as part of a search request. The flowchart300 continues to block 304 where a plurality of objects that match thequery are retrieved. The flowchart 300 continues to block 306 wheredistribution over time of the objects (known as a chronology histogram)matching the query is determined for temporality analysis of the querybased on timestamp metadata associated with the objects. The flowchart300 continues to block 308 where the distribution over time of theobjects is analyzed to provide a classification of the intent of thequery. The flowchart 300 ends at block 310 where a search resultincluding the objects is generated that is not only based on matching ofthe objects to the query but also based on the classification of theintent of the query.

In some embodiments, the search engine 202 provides a discreteclassification of the intent of the query into various categories,wherein a query with constant/even distribution of objects over time ismost likely intended for knowledge/canonical and may be classified bythe search engine 202 as such, while the query with distribution of theobjects concentrated at particular points is most likely focused on aspecific event, and a query with distribution of the objects increasedover time mainly reflects the recent interest of a user. Alternatively,the search engine 202 provides a continuous classification of the intentof the query, which can be but is not limited to a scalar or vectorvalue resulting from transformations of a chronology histogram of thequery, which represents the distribution over time of the objectsmatching the query.

In some embodiments, the search engine 202 may utilize the temporalityanalysis of the query, among other criteria and/or factors, to select a“time window” that provides the best search result for a specific query.Here, the time window can be but is not limited to one of: hour (thepreceding/past 60 minutes), day (the preceding 24 hours), week (thepreceding 7 days), month (the preceding 30 days), or all (results fromas far back as they have been collected). However, if only one of thesewindows can be pre-selected and displayed on the results page as thesearch result at a given time, the purpose of the time window selectionis to choose the proper time window (H, D, W, M, or A) to be displayed.In some embodiments, the search engine 202 may select a combination ofmultiple time windows so that the search result may include, for anon-limiting example, mostly canonical objects with a few recentobjects.

In some embodiments, among a given set of time windows, such as the pasthour, day, week, month and “all-time”, the search engine 202 may selectthe best time window based on the time distribution of the objectsmatching the query, i.e., the ratio of the actual count of objects(object count) during that time window to the expected object count forthat time window for that specific query so that the temporality of thesearch result best matches that of the query. Here, the search engine202 may compute the expected object count for a time window based onactual object counts for the preceding and succeeding time windows,including place-holder time windows that may never be selected but areused for computation purposes only. The expected object count for a timewindow can be based on the actual time (including the time of day, ortime of week) in which the query takes place. The search engine 202 mayweight the ratio of expected to actual object count may be weighted toprovide a bias for certain time windows (e.g. day preferred to month).Such time window selection process is based on the assumption that atime window is likely to be of most interest to the user if there aremore objects from that window in the search result than would otherwisebe expected proportionately from the number of objects in the preceding(next earliest) or following (next latest) windows. For a non-limitingexample, a term currently having 835 matching objects in the week windowshould have a proportionate number of 835/7=119 in the day window. If infact the day window has 472 objects, far in excess of the number 119that would have been expected based on the week window, the day windowis likely to be of most interest to the user and that is the windowwhose matching objects should be displayed as the search result.

Citation Search

In some embodiments, search engine 202 enables a citation searchprocess, which unlike the “classical web search” approaches that isobject/target-centric and focuses only on the relevance of the objects106 to the searching criteria, the search process adopted by searchengine 202 is “citation” centric, retrieving a plurality of citationscomposed by a plurality of subjects citing a plurality of objects. Inaddition, the classical web search retrieves and ranks objects 106 basedon attributes of the objects, while the proposed search approach addscitation 104 and subject/author 102 dimensions. The extra metadataassociated with subjects 102, citations 104, and objects 106 providebetter ranking capability, richer functionality and higher efficiencyfor the searches.

In some embodiments, the search engine 202 may accept and enforcevarious criteria/terms on citation searching, retrieving and ranking,each of which can either be explicitly described by a user or bestguessed by the system based on internal statistical data. Such criteriainclude but are not limited to,

a) Constraints for the citations, including but are not limited to,

Description: usually the text search query;

Time range of the citations;

Author: such as from particular author or sub set of authors;

Type: types of citations;

b) Types of the cited objects: the output can be objects, authors orcitations of the types including but are not limited to,

Target types: such as web pages, images, videos, people

Author types: such as expert for certain topic

Citation types: such as tweets, comments, blog entries

c) Ranking bias of the cited objects: which can be smartly guessed bythe system or specified by user including but are not limited to,

Time bias: recent; point of time; event; general knowledge; auto

View point bias: such as general view or perspective of certain people.

Type bias: topic type, target type.

In the example of FIG. 2, object selection engine 206 determinestemporalities and classifications of one or more of citingsubjects/sources and cited objects/targets of the citations in additionto temporality and classification of the query in order to provide alist of selected objects based on one or more of these temporalities.More specifically, the object selection engine 206 may select and rankthe objects in part according to one or more of:

-   -   How closely the temporality of the objects fits particular        temporality classifications, which may be discrete, such as        “knowledge” or continuous scalar or vector temporality        classifications;    -   How closely the temporality of the objects fits the temporality        of the query;    -   How closely the temporality of the sources of each citation for        each object fits particular temporalities, such as a pre-defined        temporality or the temporality of the query;    -   How closely the temporality of these subjects fits particular        temporalities, such as a pre-defined temporality or the        temporality of the query.

Similar to temporality analysis of a query, the object selection engine206 may determine the temporality of a subject based on its chronologyhistogram. Here, the chronology histogram of the subject can either bequery-dependent—time distribution of citations from the subject thatmatches a query, e.g. when the source “reuters” makes citationsincluding the query term “nuclear”, or query independent—timedistribution of all of the citations from the subject, e.g., every time“reuters” makes a citation in any context.

In some embodiments, the object selection engine 206 may utilize thetemporality analysis to identify whether the subjects of the citations(possibly about a particular topic or query term) are either evenly orconcentratedly distributed over time. The object selection engine 206may also utilize such temporality analysis to classify the subjects,where classification can result either in discrete classification of thesubjects into categories, such as, for non-limiting examples, “regularsources” or “sporadic sources”, or in continuous classification whichmay be a scalar or vector value resulting from transformations of thechronology histogram.

Similar to temporality analysis of a query, the object selection engine206 may determine the temporality of an object on the basis of itschronology histogram. Here, the chronology histogram of the object caneither be query-dependent—time distribution of citations for the objectthat matches a query, e.g. when the object “perl.org” is cited alongwith the query term “perl”, or query independent—time distribution ofall of the citations for the object, e.g., every time “perl.org” iscited in any context. For a non-limiting example, the object selectionengine 206 may utilize such temporality analysis to identify whether theobjects of the citations (possibly about a particular topic or queryterm) are either evenly or concentratedly distributed over time. Theobject selection engine 206 may also utilize such temporality analysisto classify the objects, where classification of the intent of the querycan result in discrete classification of the objects into categories,such as, in non-limiting examples, “knowledge” or “event”, or incontinuous classification which may be a scalar or vector valueresulting from transformations of the chronology histogram.

In some embodiments, the object selection engine 206 may limit thechronology histogram to:

-   -   citations for which subjects have influence above a threshold;    -   citations in specific languages;    -   citations for targets in specific languages; to citations from        sources in particular locations.

In the approaches outlined above, the object selection engine 206 mayweigh the chronology histogram of a query, a subject or an object basedon attributes associated with each citation, or attributes associatedwith the subject or object of each citation. Here, the attributesinclude but are not limited to language, location, source, and time(recency) of the citation or the subject or object of the citation. Theattributes may be generated, computed, acquired or may be ascribed asmetadata to the citation or the subject or object.

In some embodiments, the classifications of the query, the subject,and/or the object can be directly communicated to the user and theobject selection engine 206 may utilize such classification to performfurther operations that include but are not limited to, choosingdifferent forms of displaying the search result to the user (e.g.highlighting “events” or “knowledge”), choosing different methods todetermine the search result, and as an input to the search resultcomputation.

Influence Evaluation

In the example of FIG. 2, influence evaluation engine 204 calculatesinfluence scores of entities (subjects 102 and/or objects 106), whereinsuch influence scores can be used to determine at least in part, incombination with other methods and systems, the ranking of any subset ofobjects 106 obtained from a plurality of citations 104 from citationsearch results.

In some embodiments, influence evaluation engine 204 measures influenceand reputation of subjects 102 that compose the plurality of citations104 citing the plurality of objects 106 on dimensions that are relatedto, for non-limiting examples, one or more of the specific topic orobjects (e.g., automobiles or restaurants) cited by the subjects, orform of citations (e.g., a weblog or Wikipedia entry or news article orTwitter feed), or search terms (e.g., key words or phrases specified inorder to define a subset of all entities that match the search term(s)),in which a subset of the ranked entities are made available based onselection criteria, such as the rank, date or time, orgeography/location associated with the entity, and/or any otherselection criteria.

In some embodiments, influence evaluation engine 204 determines aninfluence score for a first subject or source at least partly based onhow often a first subject is cited or referenced by a (another) secondsubject(s). Here, each of the first or the second subject can be but isnot limited to an internet author or user of social media services,while each citation describes reference by the second subject to acitation of an object by the first subject. The number of the citationsor the citation score of the first subject by the second subjects iscomputed and the influence of the second subjects citing the firstsubject can also be optionally taken into account in the citation score.For a non-limiting example, the influence score of the first subject iscomputed as a function of some or all of: the number of citations of thefirst subject by second subjects, a score for each such citation, andthe influence score of the second subjects. Once computed, the influenceof the first subject as reflected by the count of citations or citationscore of the first subject or subject can be displayed to the user at alocation associated with the first subject, such as the “profile page”of the first subject, together with a list of the second subjects citingthe first subjects, which can be optionally ranked by the influences ofthe second subject.

In some embodiments, influence evaluation engine 204 allows for theattribution of influence on subjects 102 to data sources (e.g., sourcesof opinions, data, or referrals) to be estimated anddistributed/propagated based on the citation graph 100. Morespecifically, an entity can be directly linked to any number of otherentities on any number of dimensions in the citation graph 100, witheach link possibly having an associated score. For a non-limitingexample, a path on a given dimension between two entities, such as asubject 102 and an object 106, includes a directed or an undirected linkfrom the source to an intermediate entity, prefixed to a directed orundirected path from the intermediate entity to the object 106 in thesame or possibly a different dimension.

In some embodiments, influence evaluation engine 204 estimates theinfluence of each entity as the count of actual requests for data,opinion, or searches relating to or originating from other entities,entities with direct links to the entity or with a path in the citationgraph, possibly with a predefined maximum length, to the entity; suchactual requests being counted if they occur within a predefined periodof time and result in the use of the paths originating from the entity(e.g., representing opinions, reviews, citations or other forms ofexpression) with or without the count being adjusted by the possibleweights on each link, the length of each path, and the level of eachentity on each path.

In some embodiments, influence evaluation engine 204 adjusts theinfluence of each entity by metrics relating to the citation graphcomprising all entities or a subset of all linked entities. For anon-limiting example, such metrics can include the density of the graph,defined as the ratio of the number of links to the number of linkedentities in the graph; such metrics are transformed by mathematicalfunctions optimal to the topology of the graph, such as where it isknown that the distribution of links among entities in a given graph maybe non-linear. An example of such an adjustment would be the operationof estimating the influence of an entity as the number of directed linksconnecting to the entity, divided by the logarithm of the density of thecitation graph comprising all linked entities. For example, such anoperation can provide an optimal method of estimating influence rapidlywith a limited degree of computational complexity.

In some embodiments, influence evaluation engine 204 optimizes theestimation of influence for different contexts and requirements ofperformance, memory, graph topology, number of entities, and/or anyother context and/or requirement, by any combination of the operationsdescribed above in paragraphs above, and any similar operationsinvolving metrics including but not limited to values comprising: thenumber of potential source entities to the entity for which influence isto be estimated, the number of potential target entities, the number ofpotential directed paths between any one entity and any other entity onany or all given dimensions, the number of potential directed paths thatinclude the entity, the number of times within a defined period that adirected link from the entity is used for a scoring, search or otheroperation(s).

In some embodiments, object selection engine 206 utilizes influencescores of the citing subjects 102 and the number of their citations 104to determine the selection and ranking of objects 106 cited by thecitations, wherein the objects include but are not limited to documentson the Internet, products, services, data files, legal or naturalpersons, or any entities in any form or means that can be searched orcited over a network. Here, object selection engine 206 selects andranks the cited objects based on ranking criteria that include but arenot limited to, influence scores of the citing subjects, date or time,geographical location associated with the objects, and/or any otherselection criteria.

In some embodiments, object selection engine 206 calculates and ranksthe influence scores of the cited objects based on attributes of one ormore of the following scoring components in combination with otherattributes of objects including semantic or descriptive data regardingthe objects:

-   -   Subjects of the citations: such as influence scores of the        subjects/authors, expertise of the subjects on the give topic,        perspective bias on the subjects of the citations.    -   Citations: such as text match quality (e.g., content of        citations matching search terms), number of citations, date of        the citations, and other citations related to the same cited        object, time bias, type bias etc.

For a non-limiting example, in the example depicted in FIG. 1, citingsubject Author One has an influence score of 10, which composes Citation1.1 and Citation 1.2, wherein Citation 1.1 cites Target One once whileCitation 1.2 cites Target Two twice; citing subject Author Two has aninfluence score of 5, which composes Citation 2.1, which cites TargetOne three times; citing subject Author Three has an influence score of4, which composes Citation 3.2, which cites Target Two four times. Basedon the influence scores of the authors alone, object selection engine206 calculates the influence score of Target One as 10*1+3*5=25, whilethe influence score of Target Two is calculated as 10*2+4*4=36. SinceTarget Two has a higher influence score than Target One, it should beranked higher than Target One in the final search result.

FIG. 3 depicts an example of a flowchart of a process to supportdetermination of quality of cited objects in search results based on theinfluence of the citing subjects. Although this figure depictsfunctional steps in a particular order for purposes of illustration, theprocess is not limited to any particular order or arrangement of steps.One skilled in the relevant art will appreciate that the various stepsportrayed in this figure could be omitted, rearranged, combined and/oradapted in various ways.

In the example of FIG. 3, the flowchart 300 starts at block 302 wherecitation searching, retrieving and ranking criteria and mechanisms areset and adjusted based on user specification and/or internal statisticaldata. The flowchart 300 continues to block 304 where a plurality ofcitations of objects that fit the search criteria, such as text match,time filter, author filter, type filter, are retrieved. The flowchart300 continues to block 306 where influence scores of a plurality ofsubjects that compose the plurality of citations of objects arecalculated. The flowchart 300 continues to block 308 where influencescores of objects in the citations from the search are calculated basedon the influence scores of the plurality of subjects and the rankingcriteria. The flowchart 300 ends at block 310 where objects are selectedas the search result based on the matching of the objects with thesearching criteria as well as influence scores of the objects.

In some embodiments, object selection engine 206 determines thequalities of the cited objects by examining the distribution ofinfluence scores of subjects citing the objects in the search results.For a non-limiting example, one measure of the influence distribution isthe ratio of the number of citations from the “influential” and the“non-influential” subjects, where “influential” subjects may, for anon-limiting example, have an influence score higher than a thresholddetermined by the percentile distribution of all influence scores.Object selection engine 206 accepts only those objects that show up inthe citation search results if their citation ratios from “influential”and “non-influential” subjects are above a certain threshold whileothers can be marked as spam if the ratio of their citation ratios from“influential” and “non-influential” subjects fall below the certainthreshold, indicating that they are most likely cited from spamsubjects.

In some embodiments, object selection engine 206 calculates and rankscited objects by treating citations of the objects as connections havingpositive or negative weights in a weighted citation graph. A citationwith implicit positive weight can include, for a non-limiting example, aretweet or a link between individual blog posts or web cites, while acitation with negative weight can include, for a non-limiting example, astatement by one subject 102 that another source is a spammer.

In some embodiments, object selection engine 206 uses citations withnegative weights in a citation graph-based rank/influence calculationapproach to propagate negative citation scores through the citationgraph. Assigning and propagating citations of negative weights makes itpossible to identify clusters of spammers in the citation graph withouthaving each spammer individually identified. Furthermore, identifyingsubjects/sources 102 with high influence and propagating a few negativecitations from such subjects is enough to mark an entire cluster ofspammers negatively, thus reducing their influence on the search result.

In some embodiments, object selection engine 206 presents the generatedsearch results of cited objects to a user who issues the search requestor provides the generated search results to a third party for furtherprocessing. In some embodiments, object selection engine 206 presents tothe user a score computed from a function combining the count ofcitations and the influence of the subjects of the citations along withthe search result of the objects. In some embodiments, object selectionengine 206 displays multiple scores computed from functions combiningthe counts of subsets of citations and the influence of the source ofeach citation along with the search result, where each subset may bedetermined by criteria such as the influence of the subjects, orattributes of the subjects or the citations. For non limiting-examples,the following may be displayed to the user—“5 citations from Twitter; 7citations from people in Japan; and 8 citations in English frominfluential users.” The subsets above may be selected and/or filteredeither by the object selection engine 206 or by users.

In some embodiments, object selection engine 206 selects for display ofevery object in the search result, one or more citations and thesubjects of the citations on the basis of criteria such as the recencyor the influence of their citing subjects relative to the othercitations in the search result. Object selection engine 206 thendisplays the selected citations and/or subjects in such a way that therelationship between the search result, the citations and the subjectsof the citations are made transparent to a user.

One embodiment may be implemented using a conventional general purposeor a specialized digital computer or microprocessor(s) programmedaccording to the teachings of the present disclosure, as will beapparent to those skilled in the computer art. Appropriate softwarecoding can readily be prepared by skilled programmers based on theteachings of the present disclosure, as will be apparent to thoseskilled in the software art. The invention may also be implemented bythe preparation of integrated circuits or by interconnecting anappropriate network of conventional component circuits, as will bereadily apparent to those skilled in the art.

One embodiment includes a computer program product which is a machinereadable medium (media) having instructions stored thereon/in which canbe used to program one or more hosts to perform any of the featurespresented herein. The machine readable medium can include, but is notlimited to, one or more types of disks including floppy disks, opticaldiscs, DVD, CD-ROMs, micro drive, and magneto-optical disks, ROMs, RAMs,EPROMs, EEPROMs, DRAMs, VRAMs, flash memory devices, magnetic or opticalcards, nanosystems (including molecular memory ICs), or any type ofmedia or device suitable for storing instructions and/or data. Stored onany one of the computer readable medium (media), the present inventionincludes software for controlling both the hardware of the generalpurpose/specialized computer or microprocessor, and for enabling thecomputer or microprocessor to interact with a human viewer or othermechanism utilizing the results of the present invention. Such softwaremay include, but is not limited to, device drivers, operating systems,execution environments/containers, and applications.

The foregoing description of various embodiments of the claimed subjectmatter has been provided for the purposes of illustration anddescription. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the claimedsubject matter to the precise forms disclosed. Many modifications andvariations will be apparent to the practitioner skilled in the art.Particularly, while the concept “interface” is used in the embodimentsof the systems and methods described above, it will be evident that suchconcept can be interchangeably used with equivalent software conceptssuch as, class, method, type, module, component, bean, module, objectmodel, process, thread, and other suitable concepts. While the concept“component” is used in the embodiments of the systems and methodsdescribed above, it will be evident that such concept can beinterchangeably used with equivalent concepts such as, class, method,type, interface, module, object model, and other suitable concepts.Embodiments were chosen and described in order to best describe theprinciples of the invention and its practical application, therebyenabling others skilled in the relevant art to understand the claimedsubject matter, the various embodiments and with various modificationsthat are suited to the particular use contemplated.

1. A system, comprising: a search engine, which in operation, accepts a query from a user as part of a search request; retrieves a plurality of objects that match the query ; determines distribution over time of the objects matching the query for temporality analysis of the query; analyzes the distribution over time of the objects to provide a classification of the intent of the query; generates a search result including the objects that are not only based on matching of the objects to the query but also based on the classification of the intent of the query.
 2. The system of claim 1, wherein: each of the plurality of objects is one of: Internet web sites, blogs, videos, books, films, music, image, video, documents, data files, objects for sale, objects that are reviewed or recommended or cited, subjects/authors, natural or legal persons, citations, or any entities that are associated with a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI).
 3. The system of claim 1, wherein: the search engine provides a discrete classification of the intent of the query into various categories.
 4. The system of claim 3, wherein: the search engine classifies the query with constant or even distribution of the objects over time as for knowledge/canonical.
 5. The system of claim 3, wherein: the search engine classifies the query with the distribution of the objects concentrated at particular points as focused on a specific event.
 6. The system of claim 3, wherein: the search engine classifies the query with the distribution of the objects increased over time as reflecting the recent interest of the user.
 7. The system of claim 1, wherein: the search engine provides a continuous classification of the intent of the query.
 8. The system of claim 7, wherein: the continuous classification of the intent of the query is a scalar or vector value resulting from transformations of a chronology histogram of the query, which represents the distribution over time of the objects matching the query.
 9. The system of claim 1, wherein: the search engine utilizes the temporality analysis of the query to select a time window that provides the best search result for the query.
 10. The system of claim 9, wherein: the search engine selects a combination of multiple time windows that provides the best search result for the query.
 11. The system of claim 9, wherein: the search engine selects the best time window based on the time distribution of the objects matching the query among a given set of time windows.
 12. The system of claim 1, wherein: the search engine enables a citation centric search process that retrieves a plurality of citations composed by a plurality of subjects citing the plurality of objects.
 13. The system of claim 12, wherein: each of the plurality of subjects has an opinion wherein expression of the opinion is explicit, expressed, implicit, or imputed through any other technique.
 14. The system of claim 12, wherein: each of the plurality of citations includes one or more of: expression of opinions on the objects, expressions of authors in the form of Tweets, blog posts, reviews of objects on Internet web sites Wikipedia entries, postings to social media, postings to websites, postings in the form of reviews, recommendations, or any other form of citation made to mailing lists, newsgroups, discussion forums, comments to websites or any other form of Internet publication.
 15. The system of claim 12, wherein: the search engine accepts and enforces a plurality of criteria on citation searching, retrieving and ranking, each of which is either be explicitly described by a user or best guessed by the system based on internal statistical data.
 16. The system of claim 15, wherein: the plurality of criteria include one or more of constraints for the plurality of citations, type of the plurality of objects cited, and ranking bias of the cited objects.
 17. The system of claim 12, further comprising: an object selection engine, which in operation, determines temporalities and classifications of one or more of the citing subjects and the cited objects of the citations in addition to temporality of the query; provides the list of selected objects based on one or more of these temporalities and classifications.
 18. The system of claim 17, wherein: the object selection engine determines the temporality of a subject based on time distribution of the citations from the subject that match the query.
 19. The system of claim 17, wherein: the object selection engine determines the temporality of a subject based on time distribution of all of the citations from the subject.
 20. The system of claim 17, wherein: the object selection engine utilizes the temporalities to identify whether the subjects of the citations are either evenly or concentratedly distributed over time.
 21. The system of claim 17, wherein: the object selection engine classifies the subjects either into discrete classification of categories or in continuous classification.
 22. The system of claim 17, wherein: the object selection engine determines the temporality of an object based on time distribution of the citations for the object that match the query.
 23. The system of claim 17, wherein: the object selection engine determines the temporality of an object based on time distribution of all of the citations for the object.
 24. The system of claim 17, wherein: the object selection engine utilizes the temporalities to identify whether the objects of the citations are either evenly or concentratedly distributed over time.
 25. The system of claim 17, wherein: the object selection engine classifies the objects either into discrete classification of categories or in continuous classification.
 26. The system of claim 17, wherein: the object selection engine weighs the time distribution a query, a subject or an object based on attributes associated with each citation, or attributes associated with the subject or object of each citation.
 27. The system of claim 26, wherein: the attributes include one or more of language, location, source, and time of the citation or the subject or object of the citation.
 28. The system of claim 17, wherein: the object selection engine utilizes the classifications of the query, the subject, and/or the object to perform one or more of choosing different forms of displaying the search result to the user, choosing different methods to determine the search result, and as an input to the search result computation.
 29. A method, comprising: accepting a query from a user as part of a search request; retrieving a plurality of objects that match the query ; determining distribution over time of the objects matching the query for temporality analysis of the query; analyzing the distribution over time of the objects to provide a classification of the intent of the query; generating a search result including the objects that are not only based on matching of the objects to the query but also based on the classification of the intent of the query.
 30. The method of claim 29, further comprising: providing a discrete classification of the intent of the query into various categories.
 31. The method of claim 30, further comprising: classifying the query with constant or even distribution of the objects over time as for knowledge/canonical.
 32. The method of claim 30, further comprising: classifying the query with the distribution of the objects concentrated at particular points as focused on a specific event.
 33. The method of claim 30, further comprising: classifying the query with the distribution of the objects increased over time as reflecting the recent interest of the user.
 34. The method of claim 29, further comprising: providing a continuous classification of the intent of the query.
 35. The method of claim 29, further comprising: utilizing the temporality analysis of the query to select a time window that provides the best search result for the query.
 36. The method of claim 35, further comprising: selecting a combination of multiple time windows that provides the best search result for the query.
 37. The method of claim 35, further comprising: selecting the best time window based on the time distribution of the objects matching the query among a given set of time windows.
 38. The method of claim 29, further comprising: enabling a citation centric search process that retrieves a plurality of citations composed by a plurality of subjects citing the plurality of objects.
 39. The method of claim 38, further comprising: accepting and enforcing a plurality of criteria on citation searching, retrieving and ranking, each of which is either be explicitly described by a user or best guessed by the system based on internal statistical data.
 40. The method of claim 38, further comprising: determining temporalities and classifications of one or more of the citing subjects and the cited objects of the citations in addition to temporality of the query; providing the list of selected objects based on one or more of these temporalities and classifications.
 41. The method of claim 40, further comprising: determining the temporality of a subject based on time distribution of the citations from the subject that match the query.
 42. The method of claim 40, further comprising: determining the temporality of a subject based on time distribution of all of the citations from the subject.
 43. The method of claim 40, further comprising: utilizing the temporalities to identify whether the subjects of the citations are either evenly or concentratedly distributed over time.
 44. The method of claim 40, further comprising: classifying the subjects either into discrete classification of categories or in continuous classification.
 45. The method of claim 40, further comprising: determining the temporality of an object based on time distribution of the citations for the object that match the query.
 46. The method of claim 40, further comprising: determining the temporality of an object based on time distribution of all of the citations for the object.
 47. The method of claim 40, further comprising: utilizing the temporalities to identify whether the objects of the citations are either evenly or concentratedly distributed over time.
 48. The method of claim 40, further comprising: classifying the objects either into discrete classification of categories or in continuous classification.
 49. The method of claim 40, further comprising: weighing the time distribution a query, a subject or an object based on attributes associated with each citation, or attributes associated with the subject or object of each citation.
 50. The method of claim 40, further comprising: utilizing the classifications of the query, the subject, and/or the object to perform one or more of choosing different forms of displaying the search result to the user, choosing different methods to determine the search result, and as an input to the search result computation.
 51. A machine readable medium having software instructions stored thereon that when executed cause a system to: accept a query from a user as part of a search request; retrieve a plurality of objects that match the query ; determine distribution over time of the objects matching the query for temporality analysis of the query; analyze the distribution over time of the objects to provide a classification of the intent of the query; generate a search result including the objects that are not only based on matching of the objects to the query but also based on the classification of the intent of the query. 